Has Cognitive Ability Become More Important for Education and the Labor Market? A Comparison of the Project Talent and 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Cohorts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Empirical Evidence
1.2. Changes over Time
1.3. Present Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Cognitive Ability
2.2.2. High School Grades
2.2.3. Educational Attainment
2.2.4. Occupational Attainment
2.2.5. Income
2.2.6. Socioeconomic Background (SES)
2.3. Statistical Methods
2.3.1. Models
2.3.2. Weighting
2.3.3. Missing Data
3. Results
3.1. Correlations and Associations
3.2. Grades-at-School
3.3. Educational Attainment
3.4. Occupational Attainment
3.5. Income
4. Discussion
Inconsistent Conclusions on Modernization and the Meritocracy Theses
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | In this paper the concepts intelligence and cognitive ability are synonymous. |
2 | SEI scores narrowly-defined census occupational groups by the incomes and educations of their incumbents. |
3 | The question wording was “What were your total personal earnings (before deductions) from all your jobs for the year between 1 September 1973 and 31 August 1974 (Please include all wages, salaries, commissions, tips, as well as net income from farming or other businesses. Do not include income other than earnings such as social security, public assistance, interest, welfare, or veterans’ income payments). If you don’t know exactly, please make an estimate.” |
4 | The Inverse Hyperbolic Sine transformation is calculated as follows: IHS(x) = log(x + sqrt(x2 + 1)). |
5 | The project talent SES composite was constructed from responses to questions on home value, family income, number of books in the house, number of appliances, number of electronics, availability of a private room for the child, father’s job status, father’s education, and mother’s education (Wise et al. 1979, pp. 37–38; Damian et al. 2015). |
References
- Alon, Sigal, and Marta Tienda. 2007. Diversity, Opportunity, and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher Education. American Sociological Review 72: 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C. Arnold, James C. Brown, and Mary Jean Bowman. 1952. Intelligence and Occupational Mobility. Journal of Political Economy 60: 218–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashenfelter, Orley, and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 2000. Schooling, Intelligence, and Income in America. In Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Edited by Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles and Steven Durlauf. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 89–117. [Google Scholar]
- Bajema, Carl Jay. 1966. Relation of fertility to educational attainment in a Kalamazoo public school population: A follow-up study. Eugen Q 13: 306–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behrman, Jere R., and Paul Taubman. 1989. Is Schooling “Mostly in the Genes”? The Nature-Nuture Decomposition Using Data on Relatives. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1425–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behrman, Jere R., Paul Taubman, and Terence Wales. 1977. Controlling for and measuring the Effects of Genetics and Family Environment in Equations for Schooling and Labor Market Success. In Kinometrics: Determinants of Socioeconomic Success Within and Between Families. Edited by Paul Taubman. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, pp. 35–96. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
- Belley, Philippe, and Lance Lochner. 2007. The Changing Role of Family Income and Ability in Determining Educational Achievement. Journal of Human Capital 1: 37–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belzil, Christian, and Jörgen Hansen. 2020. The evolution of the US family income–schooling relationship and educational selectivity. Journal of Applied Econometrics 35: 841–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, Viola E. 1942. The intelligence and later scholastic success of sixth-grade pupils. School & Society 55: 163–67. [Google Scholar]
- Betthäuser, Bastian A., Mollie Bourne, and Erzsébet Bukodi. 2020. Understanding the mobility chances of children from working-class backgrounds in Britain: How important are cognitive ability and locus of control? The British Journal of Sociology 71: 349–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- BLS. 2022a. School & Transcript Surveys. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Available online: https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79/topical-guide/education/school-transcript-surveys (accessed on 8 August 2023).
- BLS. 2022b. The NLSY79 Sample: An Introduction. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Available online: https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79/intro-to-the-sample/nlsy79-sample-introduction (accessed on 8 August 2023).
- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In Power and Ideology in Education. Edited by J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bourne, Mollie, Erzsébet Bukodi, Bastian Betthäuser, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2018. ‘Persistence of the social’: The role of cognitive ability in mediating the effects of social origins on educational attainment in Britain. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 58: 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branigan, Amelia R., Kenneth J. McCallum, and Jeremy Freese. 2013. Variation in the Heritability of Educational Attainment: An International Meta-Analysis. Social Forces 92: 109–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breen, Richard, Ruud Luijkx, Walter Müller, and Reinhard Pollak. 2009. Non-Persistent Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence from eight European Countries. American Journal of Sociology 114: 1475–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breen, Richard, Ruud Luijkx, Walter Müller, and Reinhard Pollak. 2010. Long-term trends in educational inequality in Europe: Class inequalities and gender differences. European Sociological Review 26: 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, Cyril. 1943. Ability and income. British Journal of Educational Psychology 13: 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, Cyril L. 1917. The Distribution and Relations of Educational Abilities. London: The Campfield Press. [Google Scholar]
- Buscha, Franz, and Patrick Sturgis. 2018. Declining social mobility? Evidence from five linked censuses in England and Wales 1971–2011. The British Journal of Sociology 69: 154–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, Gregory. 2023. The inheritance of social status: England, 1600 to 2022. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120: e2300926120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collins, Randall. 1971. Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification. American Sociological Review 36: 1002–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooksey, Elizabeth C. 2018. Using the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY) to Conduct Life Course Analyses. In Handbook of Life Course Health Development. Edited by Neal Halfon, Christopher B. Forrest, Richard M. Lerner and Elaine M. Faustman. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Damian, Rodica Ioana, Rong Su, Michael Shanahan, Ulrich Trautwein, and Brent W. Roberts. 2015. Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109: 473–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Zeeuw, Eveline L., Eco J.C. de Geus, and Dorret I. Boomsma. 2015. Meta-analysis of twin studies highlights the importance of genetic variation in primary school educational achievement. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 4: 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deary, Ian J. 2012. Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 453–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1968. Ability and achievement. Eugenics Quarterly 15: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckland, Bruce K. 1967. Genetics and Sociology: A Reconsideration. American Sociological Review 32: 173–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Featherman, David L., Michael Sobel, and David Dickens. 1975. A Manual for Coding Occupations and Industries into Detailed 1970 Categories and a Listing of 1970-Basis Duncan Socioeconomic and NORC Prestige Scores (75-1). Retrieved from Madison. Available online: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/documentation/appendices/E/cor315d.asc (accessed on 8 August 2023).
- Firkowska, Anna, Antonina Ostrowska, Magdalena Sokolowska, Zena Stein, Mervyn Susser, and Ignacy Wald. 1978. Cognitive Development and Social Policy. Science 200: 1357–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, Ronald A. 1918. The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanagan, John C. 1972. The Project TALENT Data Bank: A Handbook, Palo Alto.
- Flanagan, John C., and others. 1960/1976. Project Talent Codebook, Palo Alto.
- Floyd, Randy G., Matthew R. Reynolds, Ryan L. Farmer, and John H. Kranzler. 2013. Are the General Factors From Different Child And Adolescent Intelligence Tests the Same? Results From a Five-Sample, Six-Test Analysis. School Psychology Review 42: 383–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedline, Terri, Rainier D. Masa, and Gina A. N. Chowa. 2015. Transforming wealth: Using the inverse hyperbolic sine (IHS) and splines to predict youth’s math achievement. Social Science Research 49: 264–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gamoran, Adam. 2001. American Schooling and Educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education 74: 135–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldthorpe, John H. 1996. Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: The case of persisting differentials in educational attainment. British Journal of Sociology 47: 481–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gottfredson, Linda S. 2016. Hans Eysenck’s theory of intelligence, and what it reveals about him. Personality and Individual Differences 103: 116–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grogger, Jeff, and Eric Eide. 1995. Changes in College Skills and the Rise in the College Wage Premium. Journal of Human Resources 30: 280–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrala, Kaspian. 2023. Does industrial development predict equalization in educational opportunity? A multiverse analysis. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 83: 100757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrnstein, Richard J. 1973. I.Q. in the Meritocracy. London: Allen Lane. [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hout, Michael. 2018. Americans’ occupational status reflects the status of both of their parents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 9527–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hout, Michael, and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2006. What we have learned: RC28’s contributions to knowledge about social stratification. Research Social Stratification and Mobility 24: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hout, Michael, Tom W. Smith, and Peter V. Marsden. 2014. Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores for the 2010 Census Codes. Available online: http://gss.norc.org/Documents/reports/methodological-reports/MR124.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2023).
- Hyytinen, Ari, Pekka Ilmakunnas, Edvard Johansson, and Otto Toivanen. 2019. Heritability of lifetime earnings. The Journal of Economic Inequality 17: 319–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jencks, Christopher, James Crouse, and Peter Mueser. 1983. The Wisconsin Model of Status Attainment: A National Replication with Improved Measures of Ability and Aspiration. Sociology of Education 56: 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jencks, Christopher, Suan Bartlett, Mary Corcan, James Crouse, David Eaglesfield, Gregory Jackson, Kent McClelland, Peter Mueser, Michael Olneck, Joseph Swartz, and et al. 1979. Who Gets Ahead Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, Arthur R. 1969. How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Harvard Educational Review 39: 1–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, Arthur R. 1998. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport: Praeger. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, Wendy, Jan te Nijenhuis, and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. 2008. Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence 36: 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, Wendy, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., Robert F. Krueger, Matt McGue, and Irving I. Gottesman. 2004. Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence 32: 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Justman, Moshe, and Yaakov Gilboa. 2012. The Scope for Promoting Equal Opportunity in Education: Evidence from the Kibbutz. Education Finance and Policy 7: 489–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingston, Paul W. 2006. How meritocratic is the United States? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 24: 111–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuncel, Nathan R., Marcus Credé, and Lisa L. Thomas. 2005. The Validity of Self-Reported Grade Point Averages, Class Ranks, and Test Scores: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research 75: 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, Marion. 1966. Modernisation and the Social Structure of Modern Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Reinhard Bendix. 1959. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Little, Callie W., Rasheda Haughbrook, and Sara A. Hart. 2017. Cross-Study Differences in the Etiology of Reading Comprehension: A Meta-Analytical Review of Twin Studies. Behavior Genetics 47: 52–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madhanagopal, Banoo, and John Amrhein. 2019. Analyzing Structural Causal Models Using the CALIS Procedure. Paper Presented at the SAS Global Forum; Available online: https://www.sas.com/content/dam/SAS/support/en/sas-global-forum-proceedings/2019/3240-2019.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2023).
- Marks, Gary N. 2014. Education, Social Background and Cognitive Ability: The Decline of the Social. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, Gary N. 2022. Cognitive ability has powerful, widespread and robust effects on social stratification: Evidence from the 1979 and 1997 US National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth. Intelligence 94: 101686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marks, Gary N., and Michael O’Connell. 2023. The Importance of Parental Ability for Cognitive Ability and Student Achievement: Implications for Social Stratification Theory and Practice. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 83: 100762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, and Frank Levy. 1995. The Growing Importance of Cognitive Skills in Wage Determination. Review of Economics and Statistics 77: 251–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, Yves Duhaldeborde, and John H. Tyler. 2000. How Important Are the Cognitive Skills of Teenagers in Predicting Subsequent Earnings? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19: 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, Charles. 2020. Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class. New York: Hachette Book Company. [Google Scholar]
- Nakao, Keiko, and Judith Treas. 1994. Updating Occupational Prestige and Socioeconomic Scores: How the New Measures Measure up. Sociological Methodology 24: 1–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, François. 2008. The Nature of Social Reproduction: Two Paradigms of Social Mobility. Sociologica 3: 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orr, David B. 1961. Project Talent: A National Inventory of Aptitudes and Abilities. The Phi Delta Kappan 42: 237–43. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, Robert Nash, and Rudy Fenwick. 1983. The Pareto curve and its utility for open-ended income distribution in survey research. Social Forces 61: 872–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeffer, Fabian T. 2008. Persistent Inequality in Educational Attainment and its Institutional Context. European Sociological Review 24: 543–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piketty, Thomas. 2000. Theories of persistent inequality and intergenerational mobility. In Handbook of Income Distribution. Amsterdam: Elsevier, vol. 1, pp. 429–76. [Google Scholar]
- Plomin, Robert, and Ian J. Deary. 2015. Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry 20: 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokropek, Artur, and Joanna Sikora. 2015. Heritability, family, school and academic achievement in adolescence. Social Science Research 53: 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roos, J. Micah, and François Nielsen. 2019. Outrageous fortune or destiny? Family influences on status achievement in the early life course. Social Science Research 80: 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saunders, Peter. 1995. Might Britain be a meritocracy? Sociology 29: 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shavit, Yossi, Meir Yaish, and Eyal Bar-Haim. 2007. The Persistence of Persistent Inequality. In Origin to Destination. Trends and Mechanisms in Social Stratification Research. Edited by Stefani Scherer, Reinhard Pollak, Gunnar Otte and Markus Gangl. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Shaycoft, Marion F. 1977. Project Talent: A Short History of a l--o--n--g Project. Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research. [Google Scholar]
- Shewman, W. D. 1926. A Study of the Intelligence and Achievement of the June, 1925, Graduating Class of the Grover Cleveland High School, St. Louis. I. The School Review 34: 137–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sieben, Inge, and Paul M. de Graaf. 2001. Testing the Modernization hypothesis and the Socialist Ideology hypothesis:a Comparative Sibling Analysis of Educational Attainment and Occupational Status. British Journal of Sociology 52: 441–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silventoinen, Karri, Aline Jelenkovic, Reijo Sund, Antti Latvala, Chika Honda, Fujio Inui, Rie Tomizawa, Mikio Watanabe, Norio Sakai, Esther Rebato, and et al. 2020. Genetic and environmental variation in educational attainment: An individual-based analysis of 28 twin cohorts. Scientific Reports 10: 12681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strenze, Tarmo. 2007. Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence 35: 401–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swift, Adam. 2004. Would Perfect Mobility be Perfect? European Sociological Review 20: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taubman, Paul, and Terence Wales. 1972. Mental Ability and Higher Educational Attainment in the 20th Century. New York: MCGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
- Treiman, Donald J. 1970. Industrialization and Social Stratification. Sociological Inquiry 40: 207–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waller, Jerome H. 1971. Achievement and social mobility: Relationships among IQ score, education, and occupation in two generations. Social Biology 18: 252–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wise, Lauress L., Donald H. Mclaughlin, and Lauri Steel. 1979. The Project Talent Data Bank Handbook, Pelo Alto, California.
- Wooldridge, Adrian. 2021. The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World. London: Penguin. [Google Scholar]
- Zagorsky, Jay L. 2007. Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence 35: 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zisman, Chen, and Yoav Ganzach. 2021. In a Representative Sample Grit Has a Negligible Effect on Educational and Economic Success Compared to Intelligence. Social Psychological and Personality Science 12: 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Subtest | Loadings | |
---|---|---|
Present Study | Jencks et al. (1983) | |
Abstract Reasoning | 0.68 | 0.65 |
Advanced High School Math (Math III) | 0.55 | 0.66 |
Arithmetic Computation | 0.56 | 0.57 |
Arithmetic Reasoning (Math I) | 0.78 | 0.75 |
Creativity | 0.72 | 0.71 |
Disguised Words | 0.65 | - |
English Literature | 0.79 | 0.80 |
Introduction High School Math (Math II) | 0.79 | 0.79 |
Math Information | 0.80 | 0.83 |
Mechanical Reasoning | 0.63 | 0.64 |
Reading Comprehension | 0.85 | 0.86 |
Visualization in 2 Dimensions | 0.46 | - |
Visualization in 3 Dimensions | 0.58 | 0.55 |
Vocabulary I | 0.85 | 0.90 |
Vocabulary II | 0.75 |
SES | Father’s Education | Mother’s Education | Father’s Occupation (SEI) | Mother’s Occupation (SEI) | Family Income | Family Income (HIS) | Cognitive Ability (g) | High School Grades | Years of Education | Occupation Age 29 (SEI) | Income Age 29 | Income Age 29 (IHS) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SES | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.22 | |
Father’s Education | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.18 | |
Mother’s Education | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.15 | |
Father’s Occupation | 0.71 | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.17 | |
Mother’s Occupation | 0.70 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.14 | |
Family Income | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.77 | 0.37 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.22 | |
Family Inc (IHS) | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.85 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.18 | |
Cog. Ability (g) | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.46 | 0.35 | 0.31 | |
HS Grades | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.38 | 0.17 | 0.16 | |
Years of Education | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.61 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.26 | |
Occupation | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.26 | 0.62 | 0.36 | 0.32 | |
Income age 29 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.79 | |
Income (IHS) | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.84 | 0.12 |
Project Talent | |||||||||||||
N | 95911 | 79893 | 83157 | 95642 | 44367 | 58286 | 58286 | 89596 | 91382 | 65458 | 64986 | 61478 | 61478 |
Mean | 0.10 | 10.68 | 10.84 | 48.26 | 39.72 | 7516 | 9.27 | 0.00 | 25.27 | 13.82 | 49.38 | 10357 | 9.78 |
Std | 0.97 | 3.94 | 3.6 | 24.35 | 2.73 | 5299 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 9.94 | 2.29 | 20.57 | 5381 | 0.562 |
NLSY79 | |||||||||||||
N | 9977 | 8415 | 9280 | 6898 | 5460 | 6132 | 6132 | 9298 | 7776 | 9999 | 8416 | 8142 | 8142 |
Mean | 0.29 | 11.93 | 11.66 | 40.52 | 37.31 | 21207 | 10.41 | 0.27 | 2.43 | 13.14 | 46.41 | 42056 | 13.20 |
Std | 0.97 | 3.56 | 2.69 | 24.88 | 22.12 | 13281.7 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.86 | 2.41 | 18.23 | 30695 | 2.44 |
Project Talent | NLSY79 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | |
Intercept | 25.19 | - | 25.30 | - | 25.20 | - | 2.31 | - | 2.24 | - | 2.23 | - |
SES | 1.35 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.06 | ||||
Ability (g) | 3.45 | 0.34 | 3.39 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 0.50 | 0.52 | ||||
Number of Observations | 91,370 | 85,700 | 85,689 | 7756 | 7321 | 7303 | ||||||
R Square | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
Project Talent | NLSY79 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | |
Intercept | 13.83 | - | 13.79 | - | 13.81 | - | 12.78 | - | 12.81 | - | 12.71 | - |
SES | 0.853 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 1.27 | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.26 | ||||
Ability (g) | 1.49 | 0.61 | 1.36 | 0.56 | 1.49 | 0.61 | 1.15 | 0.47 | ||||
Number of Observations | 71,303 | 66,697 | 66,673 | 9946 | 9271 | 9234 | ||||||
R Square | 0.12 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.41 |
Project Talent | NLSY79 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||
Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | |
Intercept | 49.39 | - | 48.75 | - | 48.77 | - | −11.27 | - | 44.13 | - | 43.78 | - | 43.23 | - | −0.127 | - |
SES | 5.22 | 0.24 | 2.62 | 0.12 | 0.86 | 0.04 | 6.71 | 0.36 | 2.97 | 0.16 | 0.72 | 0.04 | ||||
Ability (g) | 9.70 | 0.44 | 8.93 | 0.41 | 4.43 | 0.20 | 8.80 | 0.46 | 7.23 | 0.38 | 3.36 | 0.18 | ||||
Educational attainment | 4.31 | 0.48 | 3.40 | 0.45 | ||||||||||||
Number of Observations | 64,534 | 60,284 | 60,268 | 45,671 | 8378 | 7836 | 7811 | 7791 | ||||||||
R Square | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.13 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.35 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | Est | Std | |
Project Talent | ||||||||||
Intercept | 9.79 | - | 9.78 | - | 9.78 | - | 8.97 | - | 8.87 | - |
SES | 0.075 | 0.13 | 0.047 | 0.08 | 0.025 | 0.04 | 0.014 | 0.04 | ||
Ability (g) | 0.082 | 0.14 | 0.062 | 0.10 | 0.001 ns | 0.00 | 0.004 ns | −0.02 | ||
Educational attainment | 0.066 | 0.24 | 0.045 | 0.18 | ||||||
Occupational Attainment | 0.004 | 0.13 | ||||||||
Number of Observations | 58,856 | 57,052 | 55,135 | 41,800 | 41,575 | |||||
R Square | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.08 | |||||
NLSY79 | ||||||||||
Intercept | 10.91 | - | 10.87 | - | 10.86 | - | 10.24 | - | 10.32 | - |
SES | 0.241 | 0.22 | 0.084 | 0.08 | 0.051 | 0.05 | 0.038 | 0.04 | ||
Ability (g) | 0.341 | 0.31 | 0.296 | 0.27 | 0.241 | 0.22 | 0.200 | 0.19 | ||
Educational attainment | 0.049 | 0.11 | 0.004 ns | 0.01 | ||||||
Occupational Attainment | 0.012 | 0.22 | ||||||||
Number of Observations | 8111 | 7592 | 7572 | 7554 | 7318 | |||||
R Square | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.14 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marks, G.N. Has Cognitive Ability Become More Important for Education and the Labor Market? A Comparison of the Project Talent and 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Cohorts. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080169
Marks GN. Has Cognitive Ability Become More Important for Education and the Labor Market? A Comparison of the Project Talent and 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Cohorts. Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11(8):169. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080169
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarks, Gary Neil. 2023. "Has Cognitive Ability Become More Important for Education and the Labor Market? A Comparison of the Project Talent and 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Cohorts" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 8: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080169